THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary (Denver, Colorado) _______________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release June 21, 1997
PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY
Colorado Convention Center Denver, Colorado
1:35 P.M. MDT
MR. MCCURRY: All right. I'm going to be absolutely useless because there's nothing. (Laughter.) Believe me, I'd be better off accepting that warm invitation to get off stage. Let me just tell you what they have done so far and what they're doing right now, and then what we plan to do later on, because this is, I think, for some of you -- you're getting close to deadline time.
Picking up where, in some sense, the Lyon Summit left off, you'll recall that President Chirac last year launched the Partnership for Development -- that quite naturally led to Africa being the opening subject for discussion as the leaders began their morning session today. They had a good review of various approaches to sustaining economic development in Africa, the relative merits of assistance programs versus trade and investment -- vigorous discussion.
They then moved on to the ongoing global issues that really define in many ways the foreign policy agenda of the post-Cold War era, with vigorous discussions of terrorism, drugs, crime, nuclear safety and security issues. And in all of those the leaders were very much engaged and very like-minded. They gave instructions to the sherpas to strengthen considerably the communique language that had been prepared in those subjects, and the sherpas are indeed, even now, working on that.
They ended up the first session in the morning with a discussion of U.N. reform issues and the infectious disease and AIDS issue that President Clinton indicated that he wanted to bring to the table. At that point, they took a break, running a little bit over the time, and went back for a second session after a short break.
By the way, during that break, the President and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had their bilateral meeting actually sitting at the conference at the summit table. They just decided it was more convenient to stay there and it would shorten the duration of the break, because the President wanted to try to keep the proceedings pretty much on schedule. So they met there and he had -- he didn't have to borrow anyone else's chair, no. (Laughter.) So they met, then, as you know from your pool, went and made a brief statement to the pool.
The second morning session, which just ended about 25-30 minutes ago, focused on the environment and various aspects of international cooperation to protect the planet from environmental degradation. It was a vigorous discussion, lots of different participation by the leaders. Just about everyone -- that was the one subject in which just about the leaders had one contribution or another to make.
The President then called their time for a lunch break. They went up to the seventh floor of the Public Library building and walked out onto the balcony to overlook the Denver skyline and look at the mountains a bit. The leaders appeared to enjoy being outside in the sunshine after being cooped up all morning, so they lingered on the balcony for quite a while. And the President started telling campaign stories. Some of you from the '92 campaign will recall the big rally that Clinton had in that Civic Center complex downtown, where they had a big hot air balloon. Some of you might recall that event. So the President had a great time embellishing that story and talking about -- I think the size of the crowd that day at least doubled or tripled as the story was being retold. (Laughter). But they gathered for a while there, sat down for lunch a short while ago.
President Yeltsin departs at that point -- and you know he plans to meet some U.S. private sector leaders during the afternoon session when the other leaders gather at 7. And we expect them to be dealing with macroeconomic issues -- well, during lunch we expect the conversation to focus around the globalization of economic change as a result of the new information age; how many of the structural changes we're seeing in these countries are either similar or dissimilar. And there will be a special focus on small and medium-sized enterprise job creation. They might also, depending on time, begin their discussion of retirement security and aging issues -- demographic changes that are occurring in these countries. They expected to have that conversation during their working lunch.
Then this afternoon, as they meet at 7, they'll deal with macroeconomic issues. I imagine they will also continue the discussion that these leaders have had as 7, related to Ukraine and Chernobyl. That's about all I've got to offer to you.
Q I don't know how deeply you can get into proliferation. Are you talking about the narrow issue of what happens to plutonium, or did they talk about technology transfers? And did Yeltsin get into this at all? Was there any concern or apprehension about the safeguarding of materials in Russia?
MR. MCCURRY: I know that is a subject that has been addressed; I don't know to what substantive detail they addressed those in particular. I'm reluctant right now to provide any specific read out. As I indicated, the leaders have told the sherpas that they want to make some adjustments in the communique language. And the sherpas are having a separate working luncheon right now to begin dealing with the communique language that reflects the dialogue.
Q What specifically came out about Bosnia?
MR. MCCURRY: Some of you have seen -- the wires have helpfully moved a draft statement on Bosnia that appears to be all but finally approved by the leaders. And we had sent a note into the President to please, pretty please ask the leaders just to sign off on the document that the foreign ministers had drafted so that we could call that an official statement. I'm not aware of any objections from any delegations about it. It just hasn't formally been adopted by the leaders yet.
The leaders felt it was very important to reaffirm the international community support for the civilian aspects of the Dayton Accords. This is a country that is restoring itself after a long civil war. The international community wants to be helpful. These leaders in particular want to talk about the necessity of making those civilian implementation aspects of the Dayton Accords work so that Bosnia could attract additional support from countries that have the resources to help them recover from the war.
Q Did each country get an assignment or task?
MR. MCCURRY: No, I think they had some -- they talked generally about how they are going to rebuild some of the economic infrastructure of Bosnia, but as you'll see in the statement that they eventually release, they talk more about following through on some of the commitments made at Dayton.
Q -- the African initiative by the President has been generally greeted by the leaders. There has been, however, some concern on the emphasis on trade and investment to the detriment of development assistance, especially regarding infrastructure projects. Was there any discussion about that on what the balance should be?
MR. MCCURRY: There was a good discussion about the relative importance of developmental assistance versus trade and investment, and that quite naturally other countries are proud, especially the Europeans, of the proportionate share of GDP that they put into economic assistance. I think most Americans probably don't even know what a small fraction of the total size of our economy we devote to foreign aid and to foreign economic assistance. We, of course, respond often by saying the private sector in the United States is responsible for substantial investment, and of course, our belief is that deepening and nurturing trade relationships with these emerging economies will help them grow faster than developmental assistance. But there are multiple points of view and some of those views were reflected in the conversation.
Q Mike, there have been whispers over the last couple of days that the newfound American economic self-confidence comes off to the Europeans and the Japanese as a little bit overbearing, the feeling of being lectured at, talked down to. Can you respond to it at all?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, I think that there are always different rates of performance for these economies, and every year one country ends up with something to be proud about and other countries don't. Remember, very often at these sessions the United States had to show up and listen to a lot of lectures about our budget deficit, about the slow rates of savings in our economy. And so we tried not to bristle under those criticisms when we were facing those criticisms.
Q -- any bristling from the other parties?
MR. MCCURRY: No, because I think that within the meeting itself these leaders are dealing with the structural and long-term issues that affect their economies. I think the delegations get more into the question of how you spin various things.
Q Could you elaborate on the infectious disease discussion, and how serious does the President view this as a problem and what does he hope to accomplish?
MR. MCCURRY: AIDS in many ways is a global epidemic. You all are aware of the domestic effort we are making, the President recently announced searching for a vaccine and a cure. But there are certainly aspects of this problem that are transnational and global. And the leaders agreed. I think we expect to see that reflected when they issue the communique tomorrow.
Q -- might be broader than just AIDS?
MR. MCCURRY: It will be broader than just -- it will be AIDS and other infectious diseases. And there's been some discussion about interesting and innovative ideas that have been developed in other countries.
Q Mike, some of the delegations say a fight has broken out on environmental issues and that some of the countries are pushing for specific targets to limit carbondioxide emissions. How big of an issue has this become for the leaders? What's the state of play on this?
MR. MCCURRY: I think that's a subject that's very much under discussion. I think there are some differing views on how specifically you can address questions related to issues like global climate change. Our view has been that we need to look for a serious mechanism that enjoys worldwide support not only from these industrialized nations, but from the developing world as well. And that is the type of formula that we have sought in the international negotiations that will conclude at Kyoto.
Q What did the President tell the rest of the summiteers about withdrawal of U.S. troops from Bosnia beyond next summer?
MR. MCCURRY: I think he reaffirmed for them much of what we've said publicly on that.
Q Mike, have you talked about the whole controversy over the Euro and also the EMUs as yet?
MR. MCCURRY: I haven't seen any indication that that subject has arisen. My guess is that that will be something that arises during the working session at 7 this afternoon.
Q Mike, could you elaborate on what the other leaders told the President about the withdrawal of troops next year, I mean, what their concerns were?
MR. MCCURRY: I think it would be more proper for those delegations to speak on behalf of their leaders.
Q Would it be fair to say that Ireland dominated the meeting between Blair and the President? Did they go beyond just the statement?
MR. MCCURRY: They really used that time to focus on the question of Northern Ireland, particularly in the aftermath of yet another act of violence earlier today. They do -- I expect we're going to have some opportunity, either on the margins of the meeting this afternoon or later, to do some other bilateral issues, although, most of those have been cleared away in the most recent meeting they had, since they had such an extensive bilateral. This was really, today, an opportunity more to talk about the status of the peace process.
Q Did Blair ask him to do anything about fundraising for Sinn Fein in the United States?
MR. MCCURRY: I really don't want to -- not to my knowledge, but I really don't want to get into the detail of that meeting.
Q Mike, two questions. Number one, just so that the American people understand your answer on Bosnia, should the United States people believe that the troops will or will not be gone by mid-summer? And second of all -- go ahead.
MR. MCCURRY: I think as the President has indicated, there is a defined mission that expires June of 1998, and that's the timetable we're on. The President, simultaneously, says we have to do everything we can and use every available day to deepen and nurture the prospects for peace there, because no one wants to lose the gains that we've made, we don't want to see that country return to war. But that requires action now, thinking about today as against just waiting for some deadline to arrive next year.
Q The second unrelated question -- on the notion of the United States offering advice to other countries as to what they need to do with their economies, what has the President said to Japan or Western Europe about how they ought to follow the U.S. role model?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we don't -- we're not in a position to lecture other countries. We can say there are some things that seem to be instructive about the U.S. experience. There are, frankly, things that are different in other countries. The leaders, themselves, will collectively assess what improvements can be made in each of these countries. I think the other leaders will certainly advise the United States to avoid any return to inflation.
And they, I think, collectively they will come to some agreements about what each of these economies could do individually to strengthen the global economy. And they'll be different in every case. I mean, our view about the Japanese economy is shared by some of the other countries around the table that it would be helpful if they had an increase in domestic demand-led growth as opposed to export driven growth. That's not a surprise to the Japanese, not a surprise to anybody else that's been working on these problems. But it's a forum for them to work collectively.
Q What specifically are they going to do to make sure that refugees are returned, more criminals are arrested -- I mean, specifically to make sure that the Dayton Accords --
MR. MCCURRY: Well, the ministers have followed up on some of the discussion that they had. You'll recall that Secretary of State Albright gave a very good comprehensive speech recently about the U.S. view on exactly that question. And those sentiments are shared by some of these other governments. It's about refugee return right of movement in Bosnia.
Q We know they want this to happen. I'm asking you what are they going to do to make it happen?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, for our part, we're going to follow many of those things that Secretary Albright suggested. And I think that collectively some of those other countries shared some of those sentiments and things that we have put forward.
Q Mike, on a non-summit issue, has the President received any briefings on this tobacco agreement? And where does that issue stand?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't believe he has, Peter. Bruce Lindsey arrived I think late last night, but he has not had an opportunity to talk any further to the President about it. We are just now beginning the process of evaluating the document. Based on what we know about it, I think it's going to be quite some time before we can tell you anything definitively about our views.
Q So Lindsey is going to sit down with him here?
MR. MCCURRY: He'll get a chance at some point to talk about, mostly about the negotiation. I think the President was interested in hearing how the final hours of the negotiation went, what factors seemed to be crucial to the parties. But that's not the same as really beginning to understand better what the settlement is about because, frankly, we'll have a lot of work before we'll be in a position to present that kind of judgment to the President.
Q There's a distinct lack of drama here, especially compared to summits past.
MR. MCCURRY: It's a good thing.
Q The President in his radio address made the point that ordinary typical Americans should care and pay attention and understand that this matters. Can you make that case?
MR. MCCURRY: Sure. Americans should take some comfort in the fact that we are not dealing with economic or security crises at a summit like this. This is not a moment of high drama because the conflict, the tension is not about high drama.
What is here are leaders who are willing to work patiently on the issues that I would argue President Clinton had brought to the world agenda -- issues like fighting crime, fighting drugs, fighting terrorism, looking at ways that we can prevent the spread of infectious diseases. We have, in some sense, the luxury in a world that is no longer dominated by superpower rivalry, by the United States versus the Soviet Union. We have the luxury of working in an environment which together we can work on issues that I think matter very much to typical Americans. They think about those things that threaten their lives, it's the lack of economic security, it's the problem -- the threat of disease, it's the dangers of aging and worrying about aging parents who may not have retirement income security.
These are the issues that dominate now a global summit like this and that is a very, very positive thing. And I think many Americans, as they see what this discussion is about and think about its relevance to them will understand that as long as we can find a way to speak in a language that's user-friendly and not dominated by some of the nuance of foreign policy discussions.
Q On Cambodia, did it move? Was there any discussion -- has the situation moved beyond last night?
MR. MCCURRY: They dealt with that last night. I'm not aware that they've come back to that today.
Q And on Bosnia, was there any pushing U.S., Europe, one direction or the other?
MR. MCCURRY: There was --
Q Is the U.S. still in the lead in rallying support for more firm implementation of the agreement?
MR. MCCURRY: I think there is -- I wouldn't describe the U.S. being in the lead. I think this is an effort that many of these countries have come together on in their support of the Dayton process and the work that's being done by NATO -- NATO with the Russian Federation. Obviously, I think to collectively -- they all agree on a common agenda of how we can make more effective the effort that we have underway in Bosnia.
Q Mike, can I just one quickly? The notion that maybe every country ought to have a special task, a special role, has discussion of Russia with their close relations with the Serbs entered into the summit, that maybe they're the ones to push the Serbs?
MR. MCCURRY: I'll be honest, I don't know the answer to that. I don't have that level of detail.
Q Getting back to the tobacco issue for a second, when you say it's going to take a while for the President to make up his mind, thumbs up or thumbs down -- how long? Weeks, months?
MR. MCCURRY: It will be a matter of weeks, not a matter of months.
Q And there seems to be a decidedly cool reaction for many on Capitol Hill and the public health community who think this deal is not necessarily the best deal. Is this impacting already on the President's reaction?
MR. MCCURRY: No, I think that -- and I don't know that I would characterize it as a cool reception on their part, either. I think that this is an extraordinarily complicated document. It has profound implications for generations to come. And I think, quite properly, members of Congress and the President want to make sure that they understand exactly what the public health implications are, whether or not this will achieve the objective that many have to protect the public health of Americans by encouraging Americans not to smoke -- and especially finding ways to prevent younger Americans from taking up the habit of smoking.
Q Given the costs of smoking -- to governments, is this an issue that's being discussed even at the margins of this meeting? And are any of the leaders or their delegations smoking in the central library?
MR. MCCURRY: I've not seen any in just the time that I was there. I've not seen any. There has been some controversy locally about that, but there were conveniently not many ashtrays in sight. And I have not heard any report that they discussed specifically tobacco-related diseases or the health care financing aspects of tobacco.
Q On the question of trade versus aid, was this taken up as a kind of matter of abstract academic discussion, or did somebody forcefully press the point that by not infusing addition resources into the initiatives that we're advancing that we're really kind of leading Africa into a position of false hopes?
MR. MCCURRY: I am not -- I didn't hear the debate framed like that. I think it was more on the one hand, on the other hand, there are relative merits. Obviously, there are relative merits to both -- enhanced and increased trade and developmental assistance. The question is how do you balance those out and what is the right strategy for sustaining economic development over the long-term. I think there was a good-textured discussion of that. I'm not aware that it really settled on one advocate versus an advocate of a contrary opinion.
Q Did Yeltsin meet with some American defense contractors during his hour out, and do you know anything about that?
MR. MCCURRY: That's his plan as I understand it, but that will not happen until the conclusion of the lunch -- probably not for another hour, certainly another half hour or so.
Q Is that something that we have helped him do, and what is the purpose of those meetings?
MR. MCCURRY: I think his purpose probably is to talk about the extraordinary changes that have occurred in the Russian economy, the stabilization of many of their economic indicators, the growing receptive environment for investment. I think like many of these leaders he's interested in attracting additional investment to his country and he probably is making the case for that type of investment to some of these leaders. I'm not aware whether we had any particular help in doing that.
Q I mean, the defense contractors -- I'm sorry.
MR. MCCURRY: Well, I think he's meeting with defense contractors as part of a larger group of business leaders he's seeing, if I understand correctly. You should ask the Russian delegation.
Q Let me try one more time on the troops. We all know that IFOR turned into SFOR. If there's another follow-on force in Bosnia would the U.S. consider participating?
MR. MCCURRY: We've been through that -- you've been through that with the Secretary of Defense, with the President. I don't have anything to add to what they've said to that.
Q Mike, on Ireland, Prime Minister Blair referred to it as a terrorist act. A British spokesman subsequently said that they didn't really know who was behind this, that it might have been Protestant Loyalists. Do you have any specific information as to who was behind it? If not, why are both you and Blair leaning so hard on Sinn Fein rather than anybody else?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, they were not commenting with respect to the specifics of this incident. They're talking about the violence that has plagued Northern Ireland. That violence has been associated up until now primarily with the suspension of the cease-fire by the IRA, which is why both the United States and the United Kingdom have pressed so hard for the resumption of an unequivocal cease-fire by the IRA.
We have said repeatedly that we encourage Loyalists' and Unionists' sentiments to avoid an escalation of violence and we would continue to say that today. But as to the specifics of today's attack, the United States government is not in a position to be helpful to you; you really should rely on British authorities.
Q In the discussion on Burma, was there any mention of the U.S. state and local sanctions and the WTO case by the EU?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not even certain -- no one has reported to me they even got into that subject yet. If it was on the agenda, it was not reported to me.
Q On a totally unrelated matter, Senator Glenn seems to be becoming much more serious about going back in space, NASA now taking his offer much more seriously. Does the White House think that's a good idea for Senator Glenn to test aging in space and go back up in outer space?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't know if the White House has a view on that. As someone who worked for Senator Glenn, I have a private view, which is, I think it's a dandy idea. I think he's vigorous. He has been a pioneer in many ways, and so many of the issues that are now being examined with respect to the space program do have interesting implications for populations that are older. That's one of the aspects -- we get a lot of medical benefits out of some of the research that's done in space. But I'll defer to the Senator. And I think as far as the administration's views, you should really contact NASA.
Q Do you have any reaction to Greenland offering to store old U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't -- I didn't get a report as to whether that was a subject of discussion or not.
Q I don't think it was a subject here, it's a subject that --
MR. MCCURRY: I don't have anything.
Q I couldn't hear when you were asked whether the leaders got to the issue of China and Hong Kong and human rights.
MR. MCCURRY: Not that I have heard. And I think that is because, if I'm not mistaken, that may be part of their work tomorrow. Hold on a second, all right? I just heard Barry helpfully say that's right. Yes, I think that -- and this relates to the Burma question earlier, too -- my understanding is that general democracy, human rights issues, issues with respect to China, Hong Kong, the Middle East are most likely going to be on the agenda tomorrow morning.
Q On Bosnia, Mike, how should we interpret a statement commitment to maintain a long-term engagement in Bosnia by the Summit leaders? Should that not be interpreted as a commitment to extend U.S. troop presence there?
MR. MCCURRY: Oh, no, not at all should you interpret that. There have been repeated -- repeatedly, we said our view is that the task of rebuilding Bosnia will have to be a long-term effort, that it was clear and it has been clear that it will take decades to rebuild that country in the aftermath of the tragic civil war on top of the collapse of what used to be the country of Yugoslavia, on top of all of the effects of having a totalitarian command and control economy for so many years. So that rebuilding Bosnia will require some effort by the international community for years and years to come. But that's separate question than what type of military deployment will be there along the lines of IFOR or SFOR.
Q Forgive the Trivial Pursuit, but how did this chair mix-up happen?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm sorry?
Q How did this mix-up with the number of chairs happen?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, that was a simple thing. They had moved all the chairs away while they did the photo, as they all stood. And then they brought chairs back, and they brought -- I guess they brought nine chairs back instead of 10. And they quickly found a chair for Prime Minister Blair. All's well that ends well.
Q Can I follow up one more time on the Bosnia troop issue?
Q I wish you wouldn't. I mean, I'm not going to move the ball for you on that. I think it's pretty clear.
Q -- question one more time -- that's the timetable we're on to get the troops out in June. That seems to imply that's the timetable for now, but you may change it later.
MR. MCCURRY: I have repeatedly refused to add to anything that the President, the Defense Secretary and the Secretary of State and others have said on that. And I won't. And that's -- I'm just repeating what we said publicly in the past.
Q Going back to the climate change issue. It sounds like from what he said earlier, that basically there was no sort of consensus reached and there's basically -- is there still division?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, I hope I didn't sound like that. I mean, I think --
Q -- look for a way to meet the challenge. It sounds to me like there was no agreement.
MR. MCCURRY: I think that's fuzzy language as the leaders are still meeting just to see what might come along. I think there's been a good, vibrant discussion of the issue. And we'll see where it winds up.
All right any other last things -- my understanding is that we've got the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury in the next room over at 4:00 p.m. -- is that McCurry time or real time? It's supposed to be 4:00 p.m.
She's just reading the foreign ministers' statement and not taking questions. And Secretary Rubin is doing likewise? Okay, Rubin will take a few questions. And if can get -- some of you, I know, have got different deadline problems -- if we get any report that's useful that we can pass on about the remaining -- the luncheon session, I'll try to do so.
Q Is President Clinton going to Poland after the Madrid Summit?
MR. MCCURRY: There has not been a decision made about that.
Q Do you know anything about the talks last night with Axworthy ont the salmon issue?
MR. MCCURRY: No, I understand that there were some discussions at the ministerial level. I believe that Prime Minister Chretien and the President on the margins of this meeting said that it was important for their negotiations to work on that because both countries would like to see the salmon issue resolved satisfactorily. And I think both leaders said that they instructed their ministers to redouble their efforts to achieve some agreement.
Q Mike, is it still your understanding that Yeltsin will absent himself only about an hour from the G-7 discussions, or might it be a little bit longer than that?
MR. MCCURRY: I think -- my understanding is -- when he is leaving -- he may be leaving very shortly, and then will be gone until the leaders -- I mean, he's not returning to the session this afternoon. They are going to wind up with the session they have this afternoon, go off and take a break, and then come back for this evening's festivities.
Q He's away for the entire afternoon session?
MR. MCCURRY: He's away for the post-lunch session. And the report I had indicated that since the economic statement is in pretty good shape and the finance ministers have done good work, people were predicting that afternoon session would be relatively short -- after lunch.
Q -- U.S. on Iraq sanctions --
MR. MCCURRY: I can't. I think that the State Department has been able to do a little bit more briefing on that because they're following the debate in the U.N.. The United States government was very troubled by the report that Rolf Ekeus gave on his recent assessment of compliance with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. I think the United States' view is that there ought to be some proper statement at the U.N. about the continuing failure of the government of Iraq to comply with U.N. Security Council mandates. And that subject is under discussion now. It's not clear what the resolution will be, although I think the State Department has maybe briefed some of you further about the deliberations going on at the U.N.
Q Mike, will Albright and Rubin be on the mults in here,and are they going to be on TV elsewhere in the building?
MR. MCCURRY: Josh, Barry, do you guys know whether -- are they going to feed the next-door in here? I think from next door we'll get fed -- at least the sound will get fed in here.
Q Can you suggest a timetable by which the President would begin to prepare the American people if the contingency came up that U.S. forces were going to remain in Bosnia.
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not going to -- the answer to that question is to accept a hypothetical I don't accept at this point. I think the President has made it clear that the focus right now ought to be on the implementation of those aspects of the civilian accords. And I expect them to report from time to time on how that's going.
Q You said Albright has already laid out what the specific action should be. Could you just mention a few --
MR. MCCURRY: We'll get a copy of the speech for you.
Q What is the U.S. position on establishing a meeting of an international tribunal --
MR. MCCURRY: There's been some suggestion made to me that that was, in fact, an aspect of the discussion that the leaders had on Cambodia. I'm not confident that that's true. I just don't -- I have not been able to find out whether that is, in fact, something that was pursued.
We clearly have taken the position that those responsible for heinous crimes ought to be brought to justice and that would be true in the case of Cambodia and Pol Pot, as well.
Q Do you have anything on Clinton and Yeltsin striking a deal on toughening sanctions on Iraq, unless the U.N. weapons inspectors certify Baghdad is cooperating with them?
MR. MCCURRY: Barry, has --
Q We haven't heard.
MR. MCCURRY: No, I have not heard anything. There's been nothing reported to me. They were working -- the instructions that President Yeltsin and President Clinton gave to their foreign ministers yesterday were to pursue the matter and see if they couldn't resolve it. So I think that will more likely come from Secretary Albright's direction.
Q There are reports coming out of the U.N. now.
MR. MCCURRY: The discussion has been at the U.N. And I think Secretary Albright, here, will be in a better position to brief on how those are going.
Q Will she take questions?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't believe so. But when she's down here she will have her customary entourage around, and I know they'll want to be helpful to you.
END 2:12 P.M. MDT